Central Information Commission
Satya Pal vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 27 December, 2021
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.: CIC/NDMCE/A/2019/103737
CIC/NDMCP/A/2019/132593
CIC/NDMCP/A/2020/127839
Satya Pal .....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनतम
PIO,
Executive Engineer-(Build-I)/C.S.P.Zone,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Building-I Department, City-Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone,
2nd Floor, Nigam Bhawan, Old Hindu College,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates :
Date of Impugned Order : 22-03-2021
Date of disposal of Show cause Order : 15-12-2021
ORDER
1. The Commission while hearing the captioned appeal deemed it expedient to call explanation from the PIO on account of an apparent lapse on his part to furnish information. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereinafter:
"At the outset, the Commission expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the then PIO in not having provided any reply on the referred RTI Applications within the stipulated time frame of RTI Act. Now, Commission was unable to procure the name of the then PIO, therefore Commission directs then PIO through the present PIO to send his written submissions to show-cause as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the gross violation of its provisions. In doing so, if any other persons are also responsible for the omission, the then PIO shall serve a copy of this order on such other persons under intimation to the Commission and ensure that written submissions of all such concerned persons are sent to the Commission. The said written submission of then PIO along with submissions of other concerned persons, if any, should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The present PIO will ensure service of this order to then PIO."
2. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, in the matter of CIC/NDMCP/A/2020/127839, an explanation filed by the PIO, O/o. EE (NDMC), vide letter dated 25.06.2021, that the instant RTI Application could not be replied within the time frame stipulated under the RTI Act due to prevalent COVID-19 pandemic and non-regularization of staff at the instant of receiving the RTI Application. The submission is on record and same is produced herein below:
3. In light of the aforesaid submissions, the noticee rules out any malafide intention on his part. Commission do not find it expedient to initiate any further action against him.
4. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, in the matter of CIC/NDMCE/A/2019/103737 & CIC/NDMCP/A/2019/132593, an explanation was filed by then Dealing Assistant, vide letter dated 04.08.2021, wherein he has submitted that the instant RTI Applications could have been inadvertently not marked to the concerned office by the dealing section and hence, the instant RTI Applications were not received by the concerned PIO(s) He also tendered unconditional apology for his unintentional conduct and vowed to be careful in future. In light of the aforesaid submissions, the noticee rules out any malafide intention on his part. Commission do not find it expedient to initiate any further action against him.
5. The law with respect to inflicting penalties under the RTI Act is well settled. In Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. (03.12.2007 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/8756/2007; the Delhi High Court read 'malafide' on part of PIO to deny disclosure of information as a sine qua non for imposition of penalties specified under the RTI Act, 2005. It was observed that:
17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued
6. In the facts of the present case, the Commission accepts the explanation tendered by the then PIO(s) and finds no reason to disbelieve him. There is nothing on record to suggest that he acted malafidely or failed to exercise due diligence. The penalty proceedings are dropped. Noticee stands discharged.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514